You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
At What Price? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Trial of Labour after Previous Caesarean versus Elective Repeat Caesarean Delivery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0058577 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher G. Fawsitt, Jane Bourke, Richard A. Greene, Claire M. Everard, Aileen Murphy, Jennifer E. Lutomski |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 124 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 26 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 25 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 27 | 21% |
| Unknown | 22 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 56 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 3% |
| Psychology | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 18 | 14% |
| Unknown | 24 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 December 2021.
All research outputs
#4,646,954
of 22,738,543 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#63,499
of 194,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,671
of 194,943 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,302
of 5,401 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,738,543 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 194,081 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 194,943 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,401 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.